Were we totally lame back in the old days? (comparing True Grit 2010 and 1969)

by philg

Old people (like me!) love to talk about how comparatively lame the younger generation is. But during the various Boston blizzards we managed to watch two versions of True Grit: 2010 and 1969. The older movie is, in my opinion, so cheesy by comparison that it calls into question any right that older generations have to criticize the young.

There are some parts of the old movie that I did like, e.g., the children swinging in the playground during the hanging of three criminals, and the table full of guns and ammo belts just outside the courtroom (like the pile of cell phones that they would have today). But the entire thing seemed to be filmed more or less in the middle of the day and in terrain that was not plausibly Oklahoman.

[Separately, what do gun owners think of the 1969 movie? The sheriff points her father’s pistol at Mattie as part of the process of returning it to her. John Wayne then waves the pistol around wildly on a crowded street. At the end of the movie Mattie points the gun at John Wayne while trying to hand it to him at the gravesite. I’m not a gun expert, but wouldn’t people who carry guns all day know a little more about basic safety?]

17 thoughts on “Were we totally lame back in the old days? (comparing True Grit 2010 and 1969)”

  1. I don’t know what it says about 1969 vs. 2010, but it says something about Henry Hathaway who worked his butt off directing 67 movies but almost none of which were much to speak of. The Coen Brothers have their own failures but a far better batting average, and they are clearly superior talents.

    Also Marguerite Roberts wrote the screenplay and she doesn’t have a single decent credit to her name.

    If you want to do a generational comparison you’ll have to compare all the films of 1969 against 2011. I’m not sure who comes out on top, although 1969 isn’t what I’d call the Golden Age of film making (not sure there is one).

    Also the Coen Brothers stuck closer to the Charles Portis novel, which was written in 1968. So score that for 1968 I guess.

    My nearly worthless observation about old vs. new films is that the newer films have the advantage of much better production values. No matter how bad the movie, it’s easier to sit through it if it looks a lot nicer.

  2. Regarding gun handling as depicted in the 1969 movie:

    How authentic were the aviation-related scenes in the Denzel Washington blockbuster movie “Flight”?

    Given your likely answer to that question, do you trust the Hollywood of today to produce authentic portrayals of, well, just about anything?

    What makes you believe that the Hollywood of 1969 should be any better?

  3. It’s probably unfair to generalize; sometimes the old original production hit a magical gold mine, and sometimes it didn’t. After enduring a recent “Pink Panther” remake, I watched again some of the originals that I remembered so fondly. They were a little cheesier than I had recalled, but I still found them much more enjoyable than the new one.

    And I have yet to see a remake of sundry classics like “The Wizard of Oz” or “Miracle on 34th Street” that capture the same fun and fanciful atmosphere of the originals.

  4. I agree with your comments about depictions of gun handling. As a regular shooter, I find that some depictions of weapons handling make me extremely uncomfortable. The most recent example I can think of was at the end of the film “American Sniper”, when the Chris Kyle character walked through his house brandishing a six shooter. I thought the film was excellent, but that scene, in which he points the weapon toward his wife, made me squirm. I don’t know whether Mr. Kyle would have done such a thing in real life, but none of the gun owners that I know would do it.

  6. I’m not sure that the gun safety rules of 2015 were observed in 1885. What we see in period piece movies (even hairstyles and clothes styles) has more to do with the times they were filmed than the time they are supposed to be set in. In the “1885” of 2010, they probably smoked less than in the “1885” of 2010 and had more black characters. Since 2010 is closer to our time, that version seems more “authentic” because it conforms better to our current expectations.

    I suspect the gun handling of 1969 was closer to the real 1885, because people in the past were not as obsessed with safety as we are now. When I was a kid, mothers would hold their babies on their laps while riding in the front seat. Nobody wore any seatbelts. Now if you did that, they would put you in jail.

  7. Izzie: I’m going to let the gun owners who read this weblog answer authoritatively, but I don’t think a person would have to be “obsessed with safety” either in 1885, 1969, or today to refrain from waving a loaded pistol in the face of a friend or family member.

  8. Colonel Jeff Cooper’s4 rules of gun safety were written in the 20th century (not sure when, but his writing career began while he was in the service in the 1940’s). Prior to their acceptance, it was common for marksmen to demonstrate proficiency by shooting objects out of other people’s mouths (as in this video of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Pistol Team).

    But those demonstrations involved volunteers who accepted the risk of being downrange. Pointing a gun at someone who has not volunteered can be considered a threat or an attack. At a time when most people were armed, it would not be something to be done casually, as shooting the offender could be justified as self-defense.

  9. Keep in mind that if the hammer of an old single action revolver is not cocked, pulling the trigger doesn’t do anything. Also I understand that it was considered wise to have the hammer down on an empty chamber because if you dropped the gun it might go off if it was dropped (in these old style guns). If you had a cap pistol as a child, it fired in basically the same way as the old revolvers (except there were no bullets).

    While it is (and probably always was) considered good practice not to point a loaded (or even unloaded) weapon directly at someone (unless you intend to shoot him), it is not necessarily unsafe depending on what state the gun is in. Remember that you are carrying the gun in a holster aimed at your leg in the same state, so you are constantly point it at yourself. The person you are most likely to shoot is yourself if the gun is not in a safe state.

  10. Izzie is correct about single action six guns traditionally being carried with the hammer on an empty chamber, and also that the trigger of a single action revolver has no effect if the weapon is not cocked. I also agree that our reaction to what we deem to be unsafe weapons handling is a product of our times and training. Nonetheless, as JohnO says, in a culture in which firearms were prevalent, pointing a weapon toward someone cannot have been taken lightly. Depending on distance, it could be hard to determine whether a weapon being pointed toward you was cocked or not. Even without modern safety training, I think my natural action would be to hand an unloaded weapon to someone grip-first.

  11. @Izzie,

    There are no holsters that I’m aware of that point the pistol at the wearer’s leg. Attached properly, the gun points straight down, parallel and slightly away from the wearer’s thigh/calf.
    And in the 1800’s, if you pointed a gun at someone you’d better be ready for return fire. There was an old saying: “You only pull it out if you intend to use it…”

  12. Constantly carrying a loaded firearm can lead to taking the lethality of the weapon for granted.

    Case in point, the young mother in Idaho who was killed when her infant child shot her with a loaded pistol that she had in her purse.

    Being a Viet Nam vet, I remember always keeping a weapon close at hand while performing my normal duties. There were several accidental weapons discharges (thankfully no one was injured). The small number of firearms accidents is due to the marksmanship training in basic training. Think of a couple of hundred people all carrying weapons with large capacity magazines everywhere they go – latrine, mess hall, work place…

    I don’t think Hollywood gets it right in 2010 or 1969.

  13. In old movies, did people hand each other scissors with the blade end pointed at the other person, too?

  14. Compare Italian Job (1969) with Noel Coward, Michael Caine, and Raf Valone to Italian Job (2003) with a Donald Sutherland Cameo, and see how lame we are today.

Comments are closed.